As Oscar Wilde once observed, "It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances." The photographer Richard Avedon, who straddled the worlds of fine art and fashion, surely would have agreed with him. And yet Avedon—who preferred to keep props and lighting to a minimum—didn't seem to judge his subjects as much as to let them incriminate themselves. ("A photographic portrait is a picture of someone who knows he's being photographed, and what he does with this knowledge is as much a part of the photograph as what he's wearing or how he looks," Avedon said.) Deeply revealing as his portraits seem to be, he nonetheless contended that they were also simply studies of the superficial. "My photographs don't go below the surface," said Avedon, the only photographer whose work has been treated to two major exhibitions at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. "They don't go below anything. ... I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues."

A week after the attempted comeback of the most significant political movement of the new century, an Avedon triptych now on display in New York gets a person thinking about the clues radicals have used over the years to signal their political beliefs. The "photo mural" in question, part of an exhibit that opened over the weekend at the Gagosian Gallery in Chelsea, features the Chicago Seven—the activists, Abbie Hoffman among them, charged with conspiracy after protesting the Vietnam War at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. (Hoffman was arrested while eating breakfast for having the word "Fuck" written on his forehead—the kind of clue that's hard to miss.) Though taken in 1969, as the Seven were awaiting trial, the three-part image looks as though it could have been shot in today's Williamsburg. Many of the men are wearing high-waisted jeans; a couple are in whimsically striped shirts; two wear funky glasses; one has a woven belt, tied in a big knot. There's also plenty of facial hair to go around. As a group, they come off as more goofily disdainful than revolutionary.

At the same time, they look quite different from their bourgeois contemporaries pictured on the other side of the gallery: the members of Allen Ginsberg's extended family. Those photos feature men in crisp suits and requisite ties, ladies in polite cocktail dresses and kitten heels. No one would've mistaken the Ginsbergs for Yippies—members of the countercultural 60's youth movement that Hoffman helped to found—just as no one would've mistaken Hoffman for a banker or any other kind of office worker.

One of the primary ways that the Yippies (and the beatniks before them) demonstrated their anti-materialist values was by shopping at thrift stores, according to Tove Hermanson, a senior contributor to Worn Through, an academic blog about apparel, who is working on a book about revolution and style. "Secondhand style enables wearers to confront the mainstream public by communicating allegiances to anti-consumerist lifestyles and radical sociopolitical philosophies," says Hermanson. "Flaunting un-cut hair and wearing mended and outdated clothes has acted as a peaceful visual assault on middle class standards" for decades.

During the French Revolution, the sans-culottes—a political group that played an important part in the war—were a little less peaceful about fashion. Their nickname, "without breeches," refers to the popular silk knee-length pants that they couldn't afford—and were, in fact, legally prohibited from wearing. ("There is a long history of sartorial laws in Europe forbidding lower classes from wearing certain clothes so as to impose visible distinction between groups, eliminating any possibility that any man or woman might be mistaken for a member of another class," Hermanson points out. "These laws could be extremely complex and specific; royalty may wear ermine, aristocrats may wear beaver, working class can wear muskrat.") With tensions running high, the have-culottes had to watch their backs, protecting themselves and their breeches from the have-nots. "In the moments before and during the French Revolution, sentiment turned against the wealthy and it became a liability for people to flaunt their status—aristocratic men were attacked in the streets if they dressed too ostentatiously," says Hermanson. As a result, they would "disguise themselves in work wear—long trousers, not any variation of culottes."

Aside from PETA victims, the extravagantly attired haven't typically been the targets of violence in the U.S., not even with hatred of the rich running as deep as it has in the past few years. Outside of the U.S., however, personal style can still be dramatically—and dangerously—political. As the New York Times reported in March, "A recent spate of killings and intimidation aimed at gay Iraqis and teenagers who dress in brash Western fashions is sending waves of fear through Iraq's secular circles." As many as 40 young Iraqi men who favored the tight-T-shirt-and-skinny-jeans look that is popular with Brooklyn's hipsters have recently been bludgeoned to death with cement blocks, according to justice groups. "Human rights advocates say the threats and violence are aimed at gay men and at teenagers who style themselves in a uniquely Iraqi collage of hipster, punk, emo and goth fashions," Jack Healy wrote for the Times. "The look, shorthanded here as 'emo,' has flourished on Baghdad's streets as an emblem of greater social freedom as society has begun to bloom after years of warfare. But it has drawn scorn and outrage from some religious conservatives."

The most prominent political radicals in the U.S. today—the Occupy Wall Street contingent—can choose their outfits without fear of being assaulted by anyone other than the police. Plenty go in for a hippie style, and favor "headbands, dip-dyed hair, loosely-fitting clothes, Birkenstocks or other sandals," says Madison Moore, a doctoral student in American Studies at Yale University who is working on a book about fashion. "I've seen a lot of hemp bracelets, torn jeans, 'peace' necklaces, and guitars (as an instrument and an accessory)." But there are also Occupiers whose fashion forefathers are the Sex Pistols. Plenty of protestors at Zucotti Park had "partially shaved heads ... mohawks, and those big wide legged pants with all the buckles on them," Moore observes. (Hermanson points out, "The anti-establishment thrifting tradition continued with the anarchist punks who sported ragged, sloppily mended clothes with safety pins in contrast to '80s polished business chic.")

But these days, differentiating the activists from the bourgeoisie on the basis of their attire can be much harder than it was in the past—perhaps in part because of the speed with which the fashion world is able to transfer looks from city trendsetters to malls across America. (That's something that Andy Warhol, another one of Avedon's subjects, also currently on display at the Gagosian—wouldn't have had a problem with. One of Pop Art's major themes is the replication of images.) "Urban Outfitters, like many stores that market 'cool,' are watching what people do on the streets," says Moore. "And the store works so fast that by the time they get wind of what's hot, it's already for sale." For a period, Urban Outfitters subverted the anti-materialistic ethic more, um, seamlessly: It sold secondhand clothes—at a significant mark-up, of course. Moore adds: "For the record, 'Urban Outfitters' is run by a hyper-conservative, which goes against the grain of the store's brand image of being the place where it's possible to purchase the [look of the] liberal zeitgeist."

But any modern-day political malcontents frustrated by the way fashion choices that once meant something have been co-opted by the capitalists can take comfort in a tip from Glenn O'Brien, a.k.a. The Style Guy, who writes GQ's fashion advice column. "I don't think you have to look like a radical to be a radical," he says. Clothes, in other words, don't necessarily make the activist; ideas do.

About the Author

Maura Kelly is the author of Much Ado About Loving: What Our Favorite Novels Can Teach You About Date Expectations, Not-So-Great Gatsbys and Love in the Time of Internet Personals, a hybrid of advice column and literary criticism. Her op-eds, essays, and other writings have appeared in the New York Times, the Guardian, the Daily, Slate, and Salon.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

Even when they’re adopted, the children of the wealthy grow up to be just as well-off as their parents.

Lately, it seems that every new study about social mobility further corrodes the story Americans tell themselves about meritocracy; each one provides more evidence that comfortable lives are reserved for the winners of what sociologists call the birth lottery. But, recently, there have been suggestions that the birth lottery’s outcomes can be manipulated even after the fluttering ping-pong balls of inequality have been drawn.

What appears to matter—a lot—is environment, and that’s something that can be controlled. For example, one study out of Harvard found that moving poor families into better neighborhoods greatly increased the chances that children would escape poverty when they grew up.

While it’s well documentedthat the children of the wealthy tend to grow up to be wealthy, researchers are still at work on how and why that happens. Perhaps they grow up to be rich because they genetically inherit certain skills and preferences, such as a tendency to tuck away money into savings. Or perhaps it’s mostly because wealthier parents invest more in their children’s education and help them get well-paid jobs. Is it more nature, or more nurture?

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.